Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-54qdv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T07:29:48.954Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Theoretical Basis for Managing Environmentally Sensitive Areas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2009

Michael D. Jennings  and
John P. Reganold
Michael D. Jennings
Affiliation:
Division of Park and Resource Planning, National Park Service, 200 Chestnut Street, Room 260, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19067, USA
John P. Reganold
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Soils, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington 99164-6420, USA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

While there has been considerable research and development in management of specific natural resources and public lands containing multiple resources, relatively little progress has been made concerning management of privately-owned resources through land-use planning at the local level of government. This paper examines the issue of local government policies and capabilities in land-use planning for privately-owned, environmentally-sensitive areas (ESAs) in the Pacific Northwest of North America. ESAs are defined as landscape elements that are vital to long-term maintenance of biological diversity, soil, water, and other natural resources—especially as they relate to human health, safety, and welfare, both on-site and in a regional context.

A three-steps' approach of different geographical scales (i.e. watershed, state, and region) was used in a series of studies to facilitate examination of the relationship between political structure and ecological theory. When viewed collectively these studies showed that, while there is a political basis for regulating ESAs, attempts at regulation lack a theoretical and applied basis in systems-thinking and ecological science. To begin forging a stronger linkage between the political and scientific basis for ESA planning, two major ecological theories relevant to ESA management—hierarchy and subsidy–stress—were reviewed. These theories, when used in concert, were shown to be applicable in making objective choices concerning privately-held ESAs in the Pacific North-west. They can be used as a theoretical scientific basis for ESA planning, providing both qualitative and quantitative models. Hierarchy theory can provide guidelines for ESA planning by linking biophysical processes and patterns directly to appropriate scales of political jurisdiction. Subsidy–stress theory can be used to set specific performance standards that are needed in regulation of ESAs.

As a result of our three-steps' approach at different geographical scales, four requisites for improving ESA planning were found: (1) definitions for natural resources should be standardized between regional districts, countries, states, and provinces; (2) replicative methods for ESA inventories, including natural communities and ecosystem processes, should be used; (3) a common environmental information system should be available to land-use planners; and (4) the expertise to apply such information should be available. The basis for these four items is found in the ecological systems theories of hierarchy and subsidy–stress.

Information

Type
Main Papers
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , Autumn 1991 , pp. 211 - 218
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adriaanse, A., Jeltes, R. & Reiling, R. (1988). Towards a national reference center for environmental information in The Netherlands: A review. Environmental Management, 12(2), pp. 145–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, T.F. & Starr, T.B. (1982). Hierarchy: Perspectives for Ecological Complexity. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA: 310 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Bastedo, J.D., Nelson, J.G. & Theberge, J.B. (1984). Ecological approach to resource survey and planning for environmentally significant areas: The ABC method. Environmental Management, 8(2), pp. 125–34, illustr.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, J.R., Gilliam, J.W., Daniels, R.B. & Robarge, W.P. (1987). Riparian areas as filters for agricultural sediment. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 51, pp. 416–20, illustr.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowardin, L.M., Carter, V., Golet, F. & Laroe, E. (1977). Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. US Department of the Interior Biological Services, Office of Fish and Wildlife Services, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, USA: 103 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Duinker, P.N. & Beanlands, G.E. (1986). The significance of environmental impacts: An exploration of the concept. Environmental Management, 10(1), pp. 1–10, illustr.Google Scholar
Forman, R.T. & Godren, M. (1986). Landscape Ecology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, USA: 619 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Franz, E.H. (1981). A general formulation of stress phenomena in ecological systems. Pages 49–54 in Stress Effects on Natural Ecosystems (Eds Barrett, G.W. & Rosenberg, R.). (Environmental Monographs and Symposia, Convener and General Editor, N. Polunin.) John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, USA: xvi + 305 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Harris, H.J., Harris, V.A., Regier, H.A. & Rapport, D.J. (1988). Importance of the nearshore area for sustainable redevelopment in the Great Lakes with observations on the Baltic Sea. Ambio, 17(2), pp. 112–20, illustr.Google Scholar
IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, now restyled The World Conservation Union) (1980). World Conservation Strategy. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, USA: 71 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Jennings, M.D. & Reganold, J.P. (1988). Policy and reality of environmentally sensitive areas in Whitman County, Washington, USA. Environmental Management, 12(3), pp. 369–80, illustr.Google Scholar
Jennings, M.D. & Reganold, J.P. (1989). Local government policies toward environmentally sensitive areas in British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon. Environmental Management, 13(4), pp. 443–53, illustr.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jennings, M.D., Alfonso, J.L. & Budd, W. (1988). Use of the environmentally sensitive areas rule by county governments in Washington State. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 8, pp. 63–70, illustr.Google Scholar
Karr, J.R. & Schlosser, I.J. (1978). Water resources and the land-water interface. Science, 201(21), pp. 229–34, illustr.Google Scholar
Lang, R. & Armour, A. (1980). Environmental Planning Resource-book. Multiscience Publications Limited, Montreal, PQ, Canada: 345 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Lauenroth, W.K., Milchunas, D.G. & Yorks, T.P. (1984). Sulphur dioxide and grasslands: A synthesis. Pages 185–98 in The Effects of SO2 on a Grassland (Eds Lauenroth, W.K. & Preston, E.M.). Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, USA: 198 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, J.G. & Smith, P.G.R. (1987). Institutional arrangements for a system of environmentally significant areas: The case of the East Beaufort Sea area, Canada. Environmental Conservation, 14(3), pp. 207–18, illustr.Google Scholar
IIINewman, H.G. (1982). An Environmentally Sensitive Area Planning Model for Local Governments in the State of Washington. Thesis, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, USA: 115 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Niebanck, P.L. (1984). Dilemmas in growth management. American Planning Association Journal, 3, pp. 403–5.Google Scholar
Odum, E.P., Finn, J.T. & Franz, E.H. (1979). Perturbation theory and the subsidy-stress gradient. BioScience, 29(6), pp. 349–52, illustr.Google Scholar
O'Neill, R.V., Deangelis, D.L., Waide, J.B. & Allen, T.F.H. (1986). A Hierarchical Concept of Ecosystems. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA: 253 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Popper, F.J. (1988). Understanding American land-use regulation since 1970: A revisionist interpretation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 54(3), pp. 291–301.Google Scholar
Preston, E.M. & Bedford, B.L. (1988). Evaluating cumulative effects on wetland functions: A conceptual overview and generic framework. Environmental Management, 12(5), pp. 565–83, illustr.Google Scholar
Rees, W.J. (1988). A role for environmental assessment in achieving sustainable development. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 8, pp. 273–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renwick, W.H. (1988). The eclipse of NEPA as environmental policy. Environmental Management, 12(3), pp. 267–72.Google Scholar
Revised Statute of British Columbia (1987). Chapter 290, Municipal Act. Queens Printer, Victoria, BC, Canada: 320 pp.Google Scholar
Smith, P.G.R. & Theberge, J.B. (1986). Evaluating biotic diversity in environmentally significant areas in the Northwest Territories of Canada. Biological Conservation, 36, pp. 1–18, illustr.Google Scholar
Soule, M.E. (1986). Conservation Biology: The Science of Scarcity and Diversity. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts, USA: 584 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Steiner, F.R. & Lier, H.N. Van (Eds) (1984). Land Conservation and Development. (Developments in Landscape Management and Urban Planning, Series 6B.) Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands: 481 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Stowers, J.F. & Wanchick, M.D. (1987). Land-use planning as an environmental tool within Pinellas County, Florida. The Environmental Professional, 9, pp. 1–9.Google Scholar
Tollner, E.W., Barfield, B.J., Haan, C.T. & Kao, T.Y. (1976). Suspended sediment filtration capacity of simulated vegetation. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 19, pp. 678–82, illustr.Google Scholar
Turner, R.K. & Brooke, J. (1988). Management and valuation of an environmentally sensitive area: Norfolk Broadland, England, case-study. Environmental Management, 12(2), pp. 193–207, illustr.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vallentyne, J.R. & Beeton, A.M. (1988). The ‘ecosystem’ approach to managing human uses and abuses of natural resources in the Great Lakes basin. Environmental Conservation, 15(1), pp. 58–62, illustr.Google Scholar
Washington Administrative Code (1984). Chapter 197-11-908. State Environmental Policy Act Rules. Olympia, Washington, USA: 56 pp.Google Scholar
Whigham, D.F., Chitterling, C. & Palmer, B. (1988). Impacts of freshwater wetlands on water quality: A landscape perspective. Environmental Management, 12(5), pp. 663–71, illustr.Google Scholar
Whitman County Planning Commission (1978). Whitman County Comprehensive Plan. Colfax, Washington, USA: 81 pp.Google Scholar
Wilson, L.G. (1967). Sediment removal from flood-water by grass filtration. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 10, pp. 35–7, illustr.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, G., Steiner, F., Brooks, K. & Struckmeyer, K. (1983). Determining the regional context for landscape planning. Landscape Planning, 10, pp. 269–96, illustr.Google Scholar